2014 Shaping the Future of New York Fridays: 11:00-1:45 Boylan Hall, 2231

The idea of urban renewal is quite confusing. The words urban renewal themselves sound like they describe something great, like improvement and progress. And those in charge of urban renewal, the leaders and the people who plan the renewal projects, seem to have great intentions. Not only will the cities be more beautiful, but also they’ll be safer and have more to offer, including new buildings, businesses and homes. However, for some reason, the plans often seem to fail, especially for those who were living in the places that were renewed. People are forced to leave their homes- often minorities or people with low income. People lose the tight-knit communities that they once took pride in. These people are not considered when the plans are made. To the planners (often outsiders to the communities), the areas being renewed NEED to be renewed. It will be better! Or at least they claim to think so. In a way, this reminds me of a typical problem that I learned in accounting class. The manager of a company suggests something like “If we spend $1000 more in advertising, our sales will increase by 10% and we’ll end up making more money.” Then the accountant takes the numbers and actually does the calculations, only to prove that the manager’s suggestion would actually result in a loss. The point here is that while the manager of the company surely wants to improve the company and thinks he has a beneficial plan, the plan needs to go through someone (the accountant) with inside knowledge on how everything will play out/ what the effects will be. This same idea can relate to urban renewal because sure, the leaders of a city might think that their plan is helpful- and maybe it has potential to be so, but the people living there, who can predict how they will be affected by it, should be more involved in the planning. This way they can also help make sure that everything gets followed through and the area is actually benefited.

It’s similar to what Mr. Meadows says in the interview in the reading:
“You might say that you develop this area in here for a better improvement.
No, no, it didn’t do that.
What it did, it made us struggle harder…”

All of the seminar courses that I have had the privilege of taking have incorporated the development of New York City land in relation to it’s people. The Arts of New York seminar discussed how land in Manhattan, particularly the SoHo region and regions of museums, was taken through housing law. It spoke of the poor being pushed out for low prices that did not allow for proper displacement and finally a host of social protests. The People of New York Seminar focused on the displacement of immigrants from their accustomed regions of land in New York to other areas, once they had gained stability in the economy. This in turn allowed other immigrant groups to settle in to these lower cost housing territories.  We also spoke of public housing that began to be implemented with the pushing of people out of their original land and instead into concentrated territory. In Science and Technology in New York, we spoke of East New York and how housing prices were lowered there by allowing buildings to stay vacant and then being burned down for insurance purposes. This led to low income communities with many vacant lots that allowed room for items such as community gardens. Now here we are again, discussing housing.

It is easy to see how important a neighborhood and a community can affect public health. Having a stable place to call your own, that you worked for, where you know everyone, and where everyone knows you, can be just as important as going to a physician for health. The reading mentioned that after the move the elderly began dying out, feeling that they had lost what they were working for and their sense of community. This sense of community is something that I can personally say I never felt. I have always lived in apartments and have only made passing greetings to the people living across the wall from me. My parents, who lived in Azerbaijan, had stronger ties to their communities but not nearly as intense as those of the Roanoke community so what causes these differences? The issue of physical distance was mentioned in relation to this loss of togetherness but there are obvious other factors, including the way society dictates interactions between people. Racism was present during that time and class conflict is still seen to this day and both can caused strained relations. The last paragraphs mentioned anxiety in children over the ideas of displacement and I am sure a lot more research could be conducted on children over how far that anxiety affects their future in terms of educational success and subsequently career success, as well as stability of relationships (whether they have attachment concerns- anxious attachment).